The UK’s Privy Council hearing for Vybz Kartel real name Adijah Palmer is under way currently!
The high-profile case involving Shawn Campbell (Sean Storm), Adidja Palmer (Vybz Kartel), Kahira Jones, and Andre St John, accused of the murder of Clive “Lizard” Williams, is now being appealed to the U.K.’s Privy Council.
The appellants challenge the fairness of their trial, focusing on the admissibility of telecommunications evidence, arguing it violates privacy laws and constitutional rights. This case has sparked scrutiny of Jamaica’s justice system and raises concerns about the legality and reliability of the evidence presented.
Kartel was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013 after a lengthy trial in the Jamaican court.
ML Simms on X explained in a thread today’s proceedings thus far:
The defense argues that telecommunications evidence should be excluded due to breaches of the Telecommunications Act and the Constitution’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. However, the judge questions the relevance of this evidence to Palmer’s conviction, indicating a potential failure for the defense on this front.
When asked specifically about Palmer’s BlackBerry phone and video, the defense clarifies that these are not part of the disputed telecommunications evidence. The only relevant incriminating information pertains to Campbell’s knowledge of the crime.
The defense seems less familiar with the underlying evidence compared to the prosecution, who adeptly explains the content of the disputed telecommunications evidence. Overall, the contested telecommunications evidence does not appear central to the conviction.
The defense seeks clarification from the court on how evidence obtained in breach of the Telecommunications Act and the Constitution should be handled—whether it should be automatically excluded. However, they acknowledge that the exclusion of evidence won’t affect Kartel’s conviction.
Turning to issues with the jury, the defense questions the independence and impartiality of the verdict. They highlight instances where jurors were released or accused of bribery, which they argue stains the verdict. However, the judge notes that there are no provisions in Jamaican law for a judge to continue a trial alone in cases of jury misconduct.
The defense also raises concerns about the judge’s handling of jury interference, suggesting that there is no consistent record of how these issues were addressed. They emphasize the importance of the judge providing appropriate directions to the jury, especially regarding the excused juror.
When asked about the prejudice resulting from the discharge of the first juror, the defense cites uncertainty due to a lack of clear information about what was communicated to other jurors. They propose that the judge should have established whether the discharged juror spoke to others and what was said.
The judge expresses skepticism about the defense’s complaints regarding the first discharged juror, suggesting that they are engaging in speculation.
Finally, the defense brings up a third incident involving a jury member convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice. However, this juror was not discharged to avoid restarting the trial.
This panel of jurists in Jamaica’s highest court, including Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows, and Lady Simler, are scrutinizing the legal arguments and determine the appeal’s merits.
The appeal took place over two days February 14 and 15, 2024.
Click to watch the case trial Session 1, Session 2 and the afternoon session
